COMMENTARY
Apr 25, 2024
Apparent remains of a ballistic missile lie in the desert after a massive missile and drone attack by Iran on Israel, near the southern city of Arad, April 24, 2024, photo by Amir Cohen/Reuters
Apparent remains of an Iranian ballistic missile lie in the desert near the southern city of Arad, Israel, April 24, 2024
Photo by Amir Cohen/Reuters
Raphael Cohen
By Raphael S. Cohen
This commentary originally appeared on Foreign Policy on April 22, 2024.
In the early hours of April 13, two minor miracles happened. First, in a remarkable display of technical prowess, Israel—with help from Britain, France, Jordan, and the United States—intercepted some 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles, and 30 cruise missiles fired primarily from Iran toward Israel, reportedly with 99 percent effectiveness and minimal damage to lives and infrastructure. Second, after many months of largely negative media coverage and mounting international pressure, Israel enjoyed some sympathy and positive press. Given the double success of a repulsed attack and an improved image for Israel, U.S. President Joe Biden reportedly counseled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “You got a win. Take the win.” A host of other allies and experts had similar advice for Israel.
Israel, however, has shown little interest in taking this advice. While it reportedly called off an immediate counterattack and seems content to “slow things down,” as Biden requested, Israeli leaders—including Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Israel Defense Forces chief Herzi Halevi, war cabinet member Benny Gantz, and Netanyahu himself—all promised retaliation. And Friday morning, Israel conducted a counterstrike on an air defense system at an Iranian air base in Isfahan in central Iran. Although the strike appears to have been largely symbolic, it nonetheless raises the question: Why is Israel bucking the United States and its other allies yet again, especially after those very same countries just came to Israel's aid?
Ultimately, there are a lot of bad reasons floating around for why Israel struck back. But there is also one good and overarching one, and that is the fact that Israel and Iran remain locked in war, which will continue beyond today. As long as that conflict goes on, the operational logic of that conflict will push toward escalation.
Israel and Iran remain locked in war, which will continue beyond today. As long as that conflict goes on, the operational logic of that conflict will push toward escalation.
Share on Twitter
For some, the answer to why Israel struck back boils down to Netanyahu's ambitions. According to this narrative, he is simply trying to save his own skin. Netanyahu is deeply unpopular inside Israel; he has a mere 15 percent approval rating. His principal source of political legitimacy—his claim to guarantee Israeli security—has been badly battered by Hamas's October 7 massacre and everything that has come in its wake. And so, unsurprisingly, some observers, including the Iranian regime, argue that Netanyahu wants war with Iran in order to restore his image domestically—or, at the very least, to prolong the political reckoning from the October 7 catastrophe—and, in the process, increase his chances of political survival.
Netanyahu may be a desperate man, but the push for retaliation is not coming solely from him. Indeed, some of the louder voices inside Israel calling for a counterattack came from Netanyahu's political rivals, such as Gantz, Gallant, and others who have the most to gain politically from Netanyahu's demise. According to polling, Gantz likely would be prime minister if elections were held today.
Nor is it clear that striking Iran is a good political move for Netanyahu or anyone else. According to Hebrew University polling published last week, some 74 percent of Israelis opposed a counterattack “if it undermines Israel's security alliance with its allies.” The same poll found that 56 percent of Israelis said their country “should respond positively to political and military demands from its allies” in order to “ensure a sustainable defense system over time.” Even within Netanyahu's coalition, Israel's limited counterstrike on Friday was not a clear-cut political win. Right-wing National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example, criticized the action on X as “lame.”
By contrast, Israel's stated reasons for counterattacking ring hollow. Israeli officials talked about the need to “send a message” to Tehran and “teach them a lesson.” But Israel's own recent history shows that tit-for-tat violence rarely has the intended pedagogical effect. Israel's four limited military operations in Gaza before the current war—with even more limited strikes in between—failed to dislodge or deter Hamas, as the October 7 massacre so vividly demonstrated. And Iran has used almost identical language—about needing to “teach” Israel about not striking its operatives in Syria or elsewhere—to justify its attack. All of which, in turn, raises the question of whether Israel would be any more effective trying to “teach” Iran.
Stay Informed
www.fotavgeia.blogspot.com
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου